What is Digg?69 Comments
- EochaidRiata, on 10/11/2007, -4/+31"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- Aggaman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28Wikipedia is OK, except for pages on certain issues like Israel/Palestine, where a group of fanatical editors has ganged up to ban and harass anyone who doesn't agree with them (FD: I am not and have never been a Wikipedia editor – I just noticed this after reading the articles).
Wikipedia really needs a means to stop people colluding on articles. It's better when it's just individuals happening along and making their own changes. - Angostura, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26Ah, good to see El Reg keeping up it's anti-Wikipedia crusade. I'm sure they always run one of these stories whenever they need a bit of additional ad revenue.
Wikipedia is flawed, but it's still a pretty damn amazing achievement. - DeathJux, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22People get pretty worked up about the Internet these days.
- Teggles, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Let's rationalize what you just posted
1. Some people complaining about Wikipedia
2. A person named "Essjay" pretended to have qualifications (wow, what a travesty)
3. An ISP in Qatar was blocked because every account used one IP, which had MAJOR amounts of vandalism
4. Two ISPs in Thailand were blocked because they used a proxy system
5. T-Mobile hotspots were blocked because they all used the same IP, which had MAJOR amounts of vandalism
6. AOL was blocked because it used a proxy system
7. U.S. Congress was blocked because they all used the same IP, which was primarily used for politicians to remove damaging (but true) information about themselves - astmanager, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Necessary caveat: The Register has a long and unpleasant history of giving Wikipedia some very one-sided negative press. That's not to say that they don't raise valid points, but there it is.
- Prokaryote, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12The Internet is serious business.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Some time ago I looked up wikipedia's list of famous photographers. One guy (I won't name) on the list was particularly... controversial. When I went to find him again (as a case against calling anything 'art'), he had been erased from the site because some rouge editor disagreed with his work. (I also hate the guy, but there was no objectionable content or links on the Wiki article).
- strictnein, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17Yawn... seriously. The "lava lamp" article was blanked for too long and this guy is getting upset about that?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10But it seems that 'lava lamp' is not trademarked. Some douchebag decided that the term 'lava lamp' did not exist, and tried to get the page moved to 'motion lamp' which IS trademarked.
'Lava lamp' is nothing more than a generic phrase, like 'motor car' or 'pointless fuss over nothing'.
Too many people with too much time on their hands, and not enough brains in their heads... - andyduncan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Seriously the Reg has been waging a campaign against Wikipedia for years now. It's getting sad. The Reg used to be a relevant site, now all they do is post press releases and bitch about random crap.
- Loonacy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10And if you read through the discussions, it seems the page was removed while they decided what to do, because "Lava Lamp" is a registered trademark. It's kind of difficult to argue that complying with trademark law is the same as censorship.
- Spanktacular, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Being free isn't some kind of magical shield against criticism. You can give me free soup all day long, but don't expect me to be happy about there being a few flies in it.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
Mark Twain - judsond, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Things like this happen, no one is saying every edit on wikipedia is vetted by the whole group, any more than a particular comment on digg should be representative of the whole site.
- Teggles, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7So... why didn't you put it back?
- Fraff5, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Rouge is a colour. The correct spelling is 'Rogue'.
- Teggles, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7You know, if the worst he could come up with is censorship of the freaking "lava lamp" article, I seriously doubt this matters. Come on, seriously. If they were censoring information about science, a political system or a country, it might matter.
- Cenobite, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Sir, you are correct. I would like to recant my prior statements.
- Teggles, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9The fact that literally millions of people a day use it for information? Oh wait, they deleted your precious article on something no one cares about, it's crap now!
- anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7What's a rouge editor? One wearing make-up? One with a bad complexion?
- Bamborzled, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7No link to the article? You do know that the best articles on Wikipedia cite sources, right?
- whatthefu, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Hey, stop making fun of the Wikipedia fanatics. If it weren't for them I wouldn't be getting my weekly dose of mostly-true-but-sometimes-misleading-or-factually-inaccurate information, ok?
- beowulflee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Here's a much more concise and blunt article of Wikipedia's criticisms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Criticism_and_controversy
- stickyfeet17, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6[citation needed]
- Teggles, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You put up a personal page for someone who runs a completely unknown business. What the hell did you expect? I'm assuming they judged it by the amount of Google hits, I've never seen anyone say "I don't know this person, therefore it's deleted"
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7deletes and ham handed edits aren't just politically motivated. Sometimes it's just idiots being idiots. Wikipedia admins like to think that the hearalded "notability" is true only if they've heard of it and it's important to them.
I wrote an article on a publishing company that had been in business for 25 years, had thousands of books in print, half a dozen imprints, and books on the current best seller list. I submitted the first stub, had been working on it for 10 minutes and it was gone. Speedily deleted by some self important editor.
After 5 days of every other admin agreeing that the article not only shouldn't have been deleted but should have been written long ago, it finally got restored.
Self important idiots. - mikedmoon, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Is there anyway we can swing this to blame it on Bush and/or Cheney? Is the powerful neo-conLava Lamp coalition flexing its muscles finally?
- CourtesyFlush, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Good gawd.
I though it was well known that Wikipedia is the intellectual spittoon of the intarwebs.
There are always fringe elements in any debate who strive to exclude information that refutes their view of reality.
Anyone who desires to debate by limiting data instead of honest rebuttal with solid supporting facts has no business participating in any discussion in any capacity.
It is for this reason that Wiki should be used only in small doses. - Yang1205, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Touche!
- jtb4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Think that's bad? Just trying dealiong with the DMOZ editorial *****.
- Vanderdecken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And also think that the modern English language had evolved for over four hundred years before your country and retarded spellings even officially existed. The language is English, not American, the English make the rules.
- brycelb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Another yawner. I am sure it was a dark day when the Lava Lamp was gone on the WIKI. Maybe this is the sole site the Register users for it's articles. It would explain why the quality is so strong.
Are people really writing articles about this? - miles32, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Because your new to the internets ill give you a break
but next time you post think that there may be people from other countries on here - kh99, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I'd rather have a less-than-perfect possibly over-censored site with some useful info. If they didn't enforce some sort of guidelines, it would be a useless crap heap. Most of the people who complain are the ones who can't understand why it doesn't reflect their own biased viewpoint or can't understand why they can't use it to advertise their business.
- Vanderdecken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1FYI rouge is a Wikipedia pun. It's jokingly used to refer to 'rouge admins' (deliberate misspelling of rogue). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rouge_admin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_cabals
- infradead, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wikipedia == Usenet 2.0
Time to start gaming OTRS? - DiggyBank, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You call them self-important idiots because they agreed that the article not only shouldn't have been deleted but should have been written long ago", and restored it?
- rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Is your screenname a commentary on your yearning for something more substantial down there?
- sockdemon, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Is your screenname a commentary on your yearning for something more substantial up there?
- Spanktacular, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5What else do you expect from mob rule?
- kh99, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0The word "censorship" doesn't apply only to government restrictions. You should look up words to make sure you know what they mean before lecturing other people on their proper use.
- smitty22, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0The act of censoring, to have any legal significance, must be performed by a governmental entity; otherwise there's no violation of one's free speech rights. Outside of governmental restrictions, one man's censorship is another man's editing, and any changes to a person's work, be they additions or deletions, are copyright and licensing issues.
In a nutshell you can't "sue" a private party for an act of censorship, ergo its application is specific to the government. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2woah! a witty comment on digg, someone call ripley's! Seriously, that was a good one
- kh99, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0From an on-line dictionary: "Censorship: 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively" and "Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." So complaining that they are censoring is not incorrect, as far as I can see. You seem to want to apply some narrow definition of which I'm not aware. Maybe the problem is that you didn't read the article - the article doesn't say the guy is accusing them of doing anything illegal.
- smitty22, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0"Censorship" is the governmental restriction on one's ability to express themselves. Wiki, to my knowledge is not funded or policed by the government, ergo cannot "censor" anything. What the gentleman seems to be complaining about is how Wiki chooses to exercise its editorial discretion, and he's entitled to his opinion - and given the public nature of Wiki, he may well be calling them on some sort of hypocrisy between their actions and stated policies.
That being said, accusing a private media outlet of censorship shows a level of either childish entitlement or intellectual dishonesty which makes me disinclined to give credence to his opinion. - acceptab1euname, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1oh lord, he's *still* at it? links, please
- DiggyBank, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Wikipedia might be not as good as Britannica, but it's certainly better than Digg (and most of the other sites that run on user-generated content).
- smitty22, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Wow, on the internet - Beggars can be choosers! And be the type of ingrate that looks a gift horse in the mouth! Thanks Spanky, I'm so glad you set me straight there!
- Spanktacular, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Maybe people who have a problem with wikipedia should all flood their inboxes with complaints on nearly every page?
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is